Hot Topics:

Opinion: Editorials

Editorial: Snapshots from the nation's press

Posted:
02/21/2016 11:40:40 PM MST

Apple right to challenge court order

It is understandable that federal investigators want to unlock an iPhone used by one of the attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in December. And it's understandable that the government would turn to Apple for help. But Apple is doing the right thing in challenging the federal court ruling requiring that it comply.

Law enforcement agencies have a legitimate need for evidence, which is all the more pressing in terrorism cases. But the Constitution and the nation's laws limit how investigators and prosecutors can collect evidence. In a 1977 case involving the New York Telephone Company, the Supreme Court said the government could not compel a third party that is not involved in a crime to assist law enforcement if doing so would place "unreasonable burdens" on it. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym's order requiring Apple to create software to subvert the security features of an iPhone places just such a burden on the company.

If Apple is required to help the F.B.I. in this case, courts could require it to use this software in future investigations or order it to create new software to fit new needs. It is also theoretically possible that hackers could steal the software from the company's servers.-

There are certainly other ways for law enforcement agencies to collect evidence. They already have the power to get data stored on online services like iCloud and Google's Gmail through search warrants. And they can get records of phone calls and text messages from companies like Verizon and AT&T.

Some officials have proposed that phone and computer makers be required to maintain access or a "back door" to encrypted data on electronic devices. In October, the Obama administration said it would not seek such legislation, but the next president could have a different position.

Advertisement

Congress would do great harm by requiring such back doors. Criminals and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies could exploit such features to conduct mass surveillance and steal national and trade secrets. There's a very good chance that such a law, intended to ease the job of law enforcement, would make private citizens, businesses and the government itself far less secure.

—New York Times

DU report biased

A campaign that misrepresents the treatment of homeless people in order to promote a "Right to Rest Act" in the legislature continued last week with the release of a highly biased report by law students at the University of Denver under the supervision of professor Nantiya Ruan.

The report is so out of touch with the attitudes of many cities and towns toward the homeless that it actually compares various ordinances against trespassing, camping, park curfews, and obstructing rights of way as equivalent to Jim Crow and other vile exclusionary practices of the past.

The report makes much of the claim that Denver spent $750,000 enforcing laws in 2014 that affect the homeless, and accuses cities of "attempting to 'solve' the visible problem of homelessness by making them 'invisible' through criminalization."

This is flatly and offensively false. Denver is not trying to address homelessness mainly through enforcement but by spending huge sums on health care, shelter, counseling, income support and a variety of other social services. Officials estimate the city spent $40 million on such services for the homeless in 2015 and will spend $47 million this year. And the City Council recently signed off on contracts for a housing and support program that will target 250 of the city's most chronically homeless people at a potential cost of roughly $10 million.

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story